Arizona State University’s (ASU) College Republicans United (CRU) pledged to donate half of their funds raised to Kyle Rittenhouse’s defamation lawsuit against the media, if one occurs, shortly after Rittenhouse’s acquittal on Friday. Rittenhouse has been taking non-degree online classes with ASU since October. Following his acquittal, a spokesman for Rittenhouse reported that he plans to pursue a nursing degree at ASU.
“Half of all funds collected for the rest of the year will be donated to the Kyle Rittenhouse lawsuit against the media,” tweeted ASU CRU. “We hope this action will teach a lesson to those who profit from lies and that Kyle has a comfortable life from this ordeal.”
Half of all funds collected for the rest of the year will be donated to the Kyle Rittenhouse lawsuit against the media. – We hope this action will teach a lesson to those who profit from lies and that Kyle has a comfortable life from this ordeal. https://t.co/vD7obvBNzi
This won’t be the first time ASU CRU has funded Rittenhouse’s legal efforts. Immediately following Rittenhouse’s arrest last August, ASU CRU pledged half of their funds raised that year to his legal defense. Rittenhouse faced five charges related to murder, attempted murder, and reckless endangerment. Based on the jury’s decision, Rittenhouse exercised self-defense and abided by Wisconsin’s gun laws.
Five days into their fundraising efforts, ASU CRU donated $5,000 to Rittenhouse’s defense. ASU CRU thanked the “screaming liberals” for helping their effort go viral, tagging ASU’s newspaper, State Press, as well as The Arizona Republic and The Hill.
In response to Twitter outrage over ASU CRU’s fundraiser, ASU tweeted that it didn’t endorse or support the effort and that the university would be meeting with the club to speak about it. Over a year later, ASU CRU provided an update – contrary to ASU’s promise, they reportedly never spoke with the club.
Earlier this month, the club updated that they donated a total of $14,000 to Rittenhouse’s defense. The other $14,000 reportedly went toward establishing CRUs in Iowa and California, as well as another Arizona university: University of Arizona (UArizona). ASU CRU spokespersons also told the Arizona Daily Independent that they were able to send student representatives to conferences and conventions, as well as provide legal protection for students who won’t comply with their university’s COVID-19 mandates.
“Half of all funds collected this semester for Republicans United will be donated to 17 year old Kyle Rittenhouse legal defense fund. He does not deserve to have his entire life destroyed because of the actions of violent anarchists during a lawless riot,” wrote ASU CRU.
Half of all funds collected this semester for Republicans United will be donated to 17 year old Kyle Rittenhouse legal defense fund. He does not deserve to have his entire life destroyed because of the actions of violent anarchists during a lawless riothttps://t.co/vD7obvkcaIpic.twitter.com/2ZQN2OORmj
Fox News host Tucker Carlson teased a trailer for his documentary on Rittenhouse shortly after his acquittal. The trailer featured original clips of Rittenhouse describing his experience in the year after the incident, ending with an exclusive statement from Rittenhouse as he was driven away from the courthouse following his acquittal.
“The jury reached the correct verdict: self defense is not illegal. I believe they came to the correct verdict, and I’m glad everything went well. It’s been a rough journey but we made it through it – we made it through the hard part,” said Rittenhouse.
In addition to the upcoming documentary, Rittenhouse will appear on one of Carlson’s other shows, “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” on Monday.
It doesn’t appear that the establishment college Republicans group, ASU College Republicans, donated to Rittenhouse’s legal defense. They also didn’t post a celebration of Rittenhouse’s acquittal.
ASU CRU split from ASU College Republicans in 2018. The former reportedly took issue with the latter’s approach to governance and perspective on the Republican Party, claiming that the latter was more “establishment conservative” which they likened to the “John McCain branch of the Republican Party” – or, as some would call it, the “Republican In Name Only” (RINO) branch. ASU College Republicans refuted that characterization.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The three young activist students at Arizona State University (ASU) who verbally accosted and harassed two peers for being white, cisgender males in “their” multicultural space may face disciplinary action for violating ASU’s Code of Conduct.
Mastaani Qureshi, Sarra Tekola, and Miriam “Mimi” Araya were identified as the women verbally accosting their peers. AZ Free News discovered that, at the time of the incident, the space hadn’t been officially established as a multicultural center – something that the three women attested to in a subsequent interview and statement about the incident.
According to reporting from State Press, Qureshi, Tekola, and Araya did violate ASU’s Code of Conduct. Specifics of those charges were revealed in an email obtained by Campus Reform – the three female students were charged with violating two policies related to disruption and stalking or harassing:
· 5-308 F-11: Interfering with or disrupting university or university-sponsored activities, including but not limited to classroom related activities, studying, teaching, research, intellectual or creative endeavor, administration, service or the provision of communication, computing or emergency services.
· 5-308 F-20: Stalking or engaging in repeated or significant behavior toward another individual, whether in person, in writing, or through electronic means, after having been asked to stop, or doing so to such a degree that a reasonable person, subject to such contact, would regard the contact as unwanted.
Additionally, one of the students (likely Tekola, because she was the only one of the three students arrested in relation to 2020 protests) was charged with an additional Code of Conduct violation:
· 5-308 F-26: Commission of any offense prohibited by state or federal law or local ordinance.
That email relaying the specific charges came from religious studies associate professor Leah Sarat. She urged her colleagues to sign an internal letter asking ASU to drop the Code of Conduct charges because they affected “one of their own.” Sarat was likely referring to Qureshi, a history and justice studies undergraduate, who also served as the alum liaison for the leadership sorority Omega Phi Alpha and co-president of ASU’s Women’s Coalition.
Both Araya and Tekola were graduate students. Araya, a Black Lives Matter (BLM) Phoenix policy minister, served as vice president of ASU’s Black Graduate Student Association, and was working toward her doctorate in justice studies in the School of Social Transformation. Tekola was the co-minister of activism for Black Lives Matter (BLM) Phoenix Metro and a PhD Candidate in ASU’s School of Sustainability.
In the request letter, Sarat also accused the two male students of promoting systemic racism for their attire and lunch choices. The two male students were, according to Sarat, “racist” for displaying a “Did Not Vote For Biden” t-shirt, Chik-fil-A cups, and a “Police Lives Matter” sticker.
“We consider it shameful and cruel that instead of protecting students who are clearly vulnerable and being targeted, the university is siding with white natoinalist media and downplaying the incident as an isolated disagreement between students,” asserted Sarat. “To be clear, this is a moment when colorblind language and emphasis on equivalence actually fosters systemic inequality by targeting and disciplining BIPOC students.”
Qureshi, Tekola, and Araya are reportedly being represented by The People’s Law Firm.
The ASU Dean of Students may determine sanctions for Code of Conduct violations. If a disciplinary sanction is imposed, the students may appeal for a hearing before a University Hearing Board. Based on the board’s assessment, the Senior Vice President for Educational Outreach and Student Services will then make a final decision on sanctions.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
A father recently discovered that two English teachers at Paradise Valley Unified School District (PVUSD) assigned a book containing porn and sexually explicit material, “So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed” by Jon Ronson, as part of an advanced placement (AP) 11th grade summer reading list. The greater theme of Ronson’s book was the revival of public shaming with the advent of the internet, and is rife with lewd stories and profanity. In addition to describing pornographic acts at length, the book also details bestiality and references kink.
The father, Thomas Morton, discovered that the initial assignment offered no content warnings or alternatives to the book. Instead, the assignment included a note suggesting that the students research the author. Immediate information about the book doesn’t indicate any of its sexual or pornographic content. It was only five weeks after receiving the initial assignment that his then-15-year-old daughter was given an alternative option in an email from her principal. That update didn’t offer any indication that the book was inappropriate.
The initial assignment told the students that upon returning to school in August, they would be given a timed writing prompt on “how the author incorporates humor along with informational text to achieve his purpose” in which they would have to quote directly from the book. The assignment also revealed that the book was available in the school library.
In an interview on Friday with Conservative Circus, Morton told radio host James T. Harris how he discovered the book.
“It came to light to me after my daughter and I discussed the book. She was too embarrassed to tell me the pornographic details, but she told me the book was generally about the Twitter mob publicly shaming people,” explained Morton. “I saw more and more things that concerned me, and I was pushed to have to really try to draw attention to this when I got to the part about a guy – uh – we’ll say impregnating his dog himself.”
Morton promptly wrote a letter to PVUSD Governing Board to contest the book on November 1. That letter is embedded below.
READER WARNING – the following letter contains graphic and explicit summaries and excerpts of the contested book: [READ Letter to Dr. Bales PV District Nov 1 2021 HERE]
According to Morton’s interview, the teacher who assigned the material refused to answer questions about why the book was assigned and whether he’d read the book himself. The English teachers who assigned the material, Brian Morgan and Jay Parizek, teach at Horizon High School (HHS). The principal who sent the alternative assignment email after 5 weeks was HHS Principal Linda Ihnat. Neither the teachers or the principal has reportedly faced any disciplinary action for the assignment.
Morton’s further inquiries into the matter yielded another discovery: this was the second year that the same book was assigned. Following a mother’s complaint about the book in 2019, PVUSD Assistant Superintendent Dr. Dan Courson promised to prohibit the book from being assigned in the future.
Arizona law prohibits the distribution of pornographic or obscene material to children. According to A.R.S. 13-3506, it is a class 4 felony for a person to knowingly and “recklessly furnish, present, provide, make available, give, lend, show, advertise or distribute to minors any item that is harmful to minors.”
During the PVUSD Governing Board meeting on November 4, several days after Morton’s letter to the board, HHS English Department head Rachel Prince defended her fellow English teachers as dedicated individuals committed to reaching their students “in new ways” and creating classrooms that are “inviting and inspiring.” It is unclear whether Prince broached the topic of the contested book – the board cut her mic once her allotted 3 minutes of public comment were up.
“They have, as all teachers, been tasked with preparing their students academically, socially, and emotionally for a world that they will face after graduation and that grows more complicated every day,” said Prince.
According to emails obtained by AZ Free News PVUSD Superintendent Dr. Troy Bales claimed that the assignments were “a mistake.” During the PVUSD Governing Board meeting on Thursday, Bales apologized for the book. The superintendent said that it was inappropriate and explained that it had been assigned despite past instructions to teachers to not reassign it. He advised parents to read an apology and explanation letter he’d sent last week, which also detailed PVUSD action steps to rectifying the issue such as reinforcing and expanding notification procedures for parents and administration concerning books not included as approved curriculum.
“Though we believe it’s important to balance preparing AP students for college-level academics, it’s equally important to provide age-appropriate materials and coursework,” said Bales. “Moving forward, we have immediate and short-term steps to respond appropriately. Some of those steps were described in the letter and I encourage you to read it.”
In public comments at the meeting, one father excoriated the board for not taking action on the unapproved, contested curriculum when they’d promised to do so last year. He shared how his own daughter took it upon herself to redact an assigned book for fear that her younger sister would read it.
“The books that we’re bringing in are filth. And there’s no reason for it. I should not have a daughter of mine be crossing out material in a book. And the reason why she crossed it out was not for herself, because she’s old enough to handle and learn things that she thought was inappropriate – it’s because she thought her younger sister was going to grab it,” said . “What are we doing? When our children are having to police the books for their younger siblings. It’s a shame. And these books should never have been there. They’ve never been approved.”
A mother urged accountability for Morgan, Parizek, and all other teachers assigning explicit material to be fired and investigated.
“My heart is breaking for these kids, and I’m just wondering: how did we get here? Our job as adults, parents, educators is to protect children, educate them, love them,” said the mother. “Giving porn to a child is grooming and it’s a crime. I’m calling for any teacher that knowingly gives explicit material to children to be fired and for a criminal investigation to take place.”
Morton said that he will be removing his child from Morgan and Parizek’s class, filing complaints to the police and the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) about both teachers and the principal involved.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Arizona State University (ASU) announced last month that they redesigned their Architectural Studies, Bachelor of Science in Design (BSD) program to expand admissions for the sake of inclusivity, removing a built-in competitive edge that used GPA to reduce the number of second-year students from several hundred to 45. Competitive cuts are common practice for architecture programs: traditionally, the massive reduction affords students more one-on-one instruction and ensures a ratio of 10 to 20 students to one professor. ASU’s new take on their architecture program will have a ratio of 150 students to one professor, with about 10 teaching students to buffer. ASU is currently the only university to expand its architecture program in this way.
Herberger Institute for Design and the Arts (HIDA) architecture professor and Associate Director Catherine Spellman explained in the university’s announcement that it was “heartbreaking” to have to make hard cuts essentially based on GPA.
“We’ve rewritten the undergraduate course in architecture to be completely inclusive,” said Spellman. “It used to be that we had room for 45 students in the second year going forward, but we’ve rewritten the undergraduate BSD in architectural studies to accept everyone who has a 3.0 grade point average.”
In an interview with AZ Free News, Spellman explained that the students that made the cut under the previous program structure usually had around a 3.7 or higher GPA. Spellman made the case that GPA doesn’t directly measure intelligence or ability – instead, it reflects opportunity.
“A lot of what a GPA is, is a measure of a student’s opportunity. It’s one thing if you have a student that’s fully funded and doesn’t have to work to subsidize their education, is not raising a family – well, then that student is in a situation that they can achieve the GPA that they care to achieve,” said Spellman. “The next student may be a nontraditional student [like] a first-generation student that is perhaps working 40 hours a week and working to pay the mortgage for their family home. The university opportunity is still important to that student but the possibility of a [higher] GPA is different.”
When AZ Free News asked if there were concerns that the divestment of a built-in competitive nature to the program would lead to a reduced quality of students and their output, Spellman said that perspective was framed around privilege and a misunderstanding that quality in education necessitates exclusiveness. Spellman characterized competitiveness as advantageous for students of privileged backgrounds: those who aren’t necessarily representative of their community and society at large.
“The type of university we are is trying to make a place for all types of students and not just students that represent a type of privilege,” said Spellman. “[We are] really trying to be open-minded and inclusive, rather than exclusive and competitive about [the program].”
Spellman referenced ASU’s charter to explain their urgency to support inclusivity, asserting that the university’s role is to educate for success and not exclude.
“There is an attitude about quality in education that means exclusiveness. That, however, is not the university we are at. Our charter says that we are here to educate students to succeed, not to exclude people,” said Spellman. “You could say that a lower GPA means that the students aren’t as competitive but I would argue the more people we educate what architecture is about, the better we’re serving society. Architecture is a very important discipline relative to society. You learn literature, history, math, science, structures, [and] social behavior.”
Architecture professors restructured their teaching approach to accommodate the influx of students. One recent example of this was a mass exercise mimicking on-site conflicts. First-year Architecture 101 students had to work within a group to recreate assigned circular patterns on an outdoor field using butcher paper, while mitigating challenges presented by their “on-site” location, such as wind.
Spellman said that the transition to larger group work also came from a purposeful effort to deemphasize the idea that a one-to-one experience between faculty and students is the only way to conduct studio teaching (a method of hands-on instruction used in architecture programs). She noted that one-to-one experience was still available in ASU’s professional programs.
“It limits the numbers of students that you can have in a studio space if you teach in a one-to-one kind of way,” said Spellman.
AZ Free News also spoke with Marc Neveu, the head of ASU’s architecture program. He noted that their student expansion was just one component of a greater redesign of the program that began before his arrival four years ago.
“The basic premise [behind the redesign] was that ASU has a mission for being known who we include and how they succeed rather than who we exclude,” said Neveu. “Architecture schools are very competitive. Sometimes that competition may be good. More often than not that competition is very bad. It’s not healthy to stay up all night, it’s not healthy to protect your work from other people. It doesn’t actually model the way the professional practice works which is inherently collaborative. Rather than being competitive, we’re being collaborative, [like] working in teams.”
The complete overhaul of the program for inclusivity’s sake stopped short of challenging the grading system. That traditional scale remains, according to Neveu.
“We do have grades, we do have critique and feedback. It’s just that we’re not trying to pit students against one another,” explained Neveu. “My experience in undergrad – not by design – was that I learned more from my peers than from my faculty. [Here at ASU,] we’ve tried to design intentionally peer-to-peer learning, [such as] learning those sorts of soft skills.”
Neveu concluded by noting that the newly-redesigned program remains a work in progress, but expressed optimism in the promise of its unique nature.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Around three weeks after privately sending an apology to its members for its controversial letter asking the Biden Administration to investigate parents for domestic terrorism, the National School Boards Association (NSBA) posted their apology memo on their website’s news page and backdated it to make it appear as though they’d publicized the apology on the same day they’d sent it.
After state associations began disaffiliating with and denouncing the NSBA for its letter, the NSBA sent its members an apology memo on October 22. Per our original reporting on October 30, the NSBA hadn’t publicized that apology memo on their news page. They also hadn’t deleted their celebratory press release about the Biden Administration heeding their call to investigate parents. As of press time, the apology memo was listed as one of their most recent news releases.
Archived versions of the webpage on October 23 show no record of the apology that they allegedly publicized on their site on October 22. Rather, the news at the top of NSBA’s page that day concerned the appointment of Dr. Viola Garcia to the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). In fact, the memo wasn’t published on their news page until some point between November 11 and 14. That’s when they also chose to delete their celebratory press release about the Biden Administration heeding their call to investigate parents, although as of press time they hadn’t deleted the affiliated tweet or Facebook post issued the same day as the press release.
“@TheJusticeDept’s swift action is a strong message to individuals with violent intent who are focused on causing chaos, disrupting public schools & driving wedges between school boards & the parents, students, & communities they serve,” read the NSBA post.
.@TheJusticeDept’s swift action is a strong message to individuals with violent intent who are focused on causing chaos, disrupting public schools & driving wedges between school boards & the parents, students, & communities they serve. Read our statement: https://t.co/Uekbf6IJp1
— National School Boards Association | NSBA (@NSBAPublicEd) October 5, 2021
Over the last few weeks, school board members and other education leaders have received death threats and have been subjected to threats and harassment, both online and in person. The individuals who are intent on causing chaos and disrupting our schools—many of whom are not even connected to local schools—are drowning out the voices of parents who must be heard when it comes to decisions about their children’s education, health, and safety. These acts of intimidation are also affecting educational services and school board governance. Some have even led to school lockdowns. The U.S. Department of Justice’s swift action is a strong message to individuals with violent intent who are focused on causing chaos, disrupting our public schools, and driving wedges between school boards and the parents, students, and communities they serve. We need to get back to the work of meeting all students’ needs and making sure that each student is prepared for a successful future. That’s what school board members and parents care about.
They’d also tweeted and posted to Facebook about their letter to the White House on the same day that they publicized the letter on the website.
We sent a letter to President Biden this morning asking for federal assistance to stop threats and acts of violence against public schoolchildren, public school board members, and other public school district officials and educators: https://t.co/q6bHM0aawQ
— National School Boards Association | NSBA (@NSBAPublicEd) September 30, 2021
However, NSBA didn’t announce the apology memo on either their Twitter or Facebook. Initial news reports on the apology memo didn’t link to the post allegedly available at the time on NSBA’s website, either.
Unlike some of NSBA’s other state associations, the Arizona School Boards Association (ASBA) hasn’t denounced or withdrawn from the NSBA over the White House letter, only publicizing their support for it.
Instead, ASBA has remained silent on that issue indicative of the conflict between public schools and parents – even as those tensions have come to a head in their own backyard. Last Tuesday, it was discovered that the father of newly-demoted Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board President Jann-Michael Greenburg had compiled a secret Google Drive dossier on parents and other political enemies. Greenburg reportedly had access to the drive and sent a picture of it to one of the targeted parents.
One day after the initial news of the Greenburg dossier broke, ASBA announced a webinar event educating members on how to be a good school board president on Facebook and Twitter. The webinar occurred Wednesday – two days after SUSD demoted Greenburg from the presidency in a special meeting. Greenburg refused to resign his membership, claiming that the board didn’t have “all the facts” and making multiple remarks insinuating that investigations currently underway would exonerate him. Both SUSD and Scottsdale Police Department (SPD) are investigating the dossier; Greenburg inferred that at least one private investigation was also underway.
“Being board president used to look easy, even though it wasn’t,” read the webinar description. “Now being board president is even more complex given the amount of public interest in school board meetings. Learns [sic] the ins and outs of board presidency and decide if it’s right for you.”
The event will be hosted by ASBA Leadership Development Manager Julie Bacon and ASBA Interim Director of Legal Services David DeCabooter.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
After a court ruling against them earlier this month, Maricopa County Community College District (MCCCD) honored the religious exemptions of two students who objected to the use of fetal cell lines to develop, test, and produce the COVID-19 vaccine. The two nursing students, Emily Thoms and Kamaleilani Moreno, were needing to complete clinical rotations to finish their final semester of MCCCD’s nursing program. Thoms and Moreno were given their requested 36 hours of capstone experience in clinical care, scheduled to begin and end in time for their expected graduation date next month.
In court, MCCCD argued that a blanket rejection of religious exemptions was necessary for their nursing program due to the vaccination requirement of some of their clinical partners and their program’s random assignment of clinical rotations. U.S. District Judge Steven Logan rejected that rationale based on the arguments of Thoms and Moreno: their lawyer pointed out that MCCCD gave similar accommodations to other students for both religious and non-religious reasons.
Logan asserted that Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act (FERA) was enacted to prevent the very choice that MCCCD was forcing Thoms and Moreno to make.
The burden imposed here by denying Plaintiffs their nursing degrees […] cannot be characterized as ‘trivial, technical, or de minimis.’ […] By denying Plaintiffs their nursing degrees, Defendant prevents them from becoming licensed and employed as nurses. They will be unable to join the profession to which they have devoted themselves for the past two years. Given the time and money that Plaintiffs have invested in their nursing education, Defendant’s Policy undoubtedly places substantial pressure on them to modify their behavior in violation of their beliefs. Plaintiffs are faced with the choice of, on the one hand, compromising their religious beliefs to complete their clinicals and graduate as expected […] or, on the other, adhering to their beliefs and giving up the nursing degrees to which they are otherwise entitled and all their associated benefits for the indefinite future.
Another argument MCCCD presented was the claim that Thoms and Moreno were only facing a temporary delay, not complete removal from the program. However, they couldn’t guarantee when, if ever, Thoms and Moreno could complete the program. The ability for Thoms and Moreno to finish relied on clinical placement with a partner that didn’t require vaccination: a future contingency which MCCCD couldn’t guarantee completely. Logan asserted that MCCCD’s inability to decisively ensure completion of the program wasn’t a “mere delay.”
“It is difficult to characterize these circumstances as a mere delay when there is no clear end date when the Plaintiffs will be able to graduate,” ruled Logan.
MCCCD’s prompt compliance with the court order was likely influenced in part by the language of Logan’s ruling. The judge asserted that the harm Thoms and Kamaleilani would’ve experienced under MCCCD would constitute “an injury of the highest order” pertaining to the Constitution’s religious freedoms.
“Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of both of their claims, that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent injunction, and that the balance of equities and the public interest weigh in their favor,” wrote Logan. “Their case is not doubtful, and the harm that they have alleged – the violation of their constitutional and fundamental right to free exercise – is an injury of the highest order under the Constitution and the law. Such an injury cannot be remedied by damages.”
Logan heard the case last month, and issued a preliminary injunction against MCCCD that same week. Logan’s order is reproduced below:
The Court enters a preliminary injunction as follows: 1. Defendant is preliminarily enjoined from enforcing against Plaintiffs its requirements that nursing students satisfy the vaccination policies of their assigned clinical partners and that nursing students must complete their assigned in-person clinical rotations in order to complete their academic programs. 2. Defendants shall make available to Plaintiffs a suitable accommodation that will allow Plaintiffs to satisfy the clinical components of their coursework and complete their academic programs as scheduled in December 2021. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court exercises its discretion and waives the requirement of a security bond accompanying this preliminary injunction.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
